As in
every USADA case, all named individuals are presumed innocent of
the allegations unless and until proven otherwise through the
established legal process. If a hearing is ultimately held then
it is an independent panel of arbitrators, not USADA that
determines whether or not these individuals have committed
anti-doping rule violations as alleged.

That's
good news for Armstrong, though the burden of proof will be
important.

The US
Justice Department recently decided not to pursue a criminal case
against Armstrong, which was a huge victory for him. Although we
don't know why the Justice Department dropped the case, the
obvious answer is that the felt they couldn't prove guilt (or,
more favorably to Armstrong, that they concluded that he was
innocent). But the Justice Department would have had to have
proved guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas the USADA will
likely only have to meet a lesser standard.

In terms
of process, Lance Armstrong now has the ability to submit a
written defense, which will be considered by a USADA review
board. The USADA review board will then review all the evidence
and decide whether to formally sanction Armstrong or drop the
case. If the USADA decides to formally sanction him, Armstrong
can then request an arbitration hearing. This hearing will likely
be held within three months of the Review Board's
decision.

Another
question is whether Armstrong will have to testify if there is a
hearing, and, if he does, whether he might once again open
himself up to perjury charges.

If
Armstrong is innocent, there is little risk here. He will
presumably want to tell his entire story, from beginning to end,
with the aim of persuading both arbitrators and the public that
the evidence the USADA is bringing against him is wrong.

Attorneys
do occasionally recommend that even innocent clients "take the
Fifth," because this reduces the risk that they will expose
themselves to perjury charges. But in a civil administrative
hearing like this, if Armstrong is innocent, he will almost
certainly want to testify on his own behalf--especially in light
of the damage his reputation has already sustained.

And once
the hearing is over, given the tremendous public interest in this
case, one hopes that all of the evidence and testimony will be
released. Nothing would be less satisfying to the millions of
people who just want to know the truth than a sealed "guilty" or
"not guilty" verdict, especially if Armstrong does testify in the
proceeding.

NOTE: Almost everyone has
strong feelings about the Armstrong case, both pro and con.
Lance Armstrong's supporters don't want to see his amazing
accomplishments tarnished any more than they already have been
(and, doped or not, the accomplishments are still amazing). They
also point out that this is all very old news and that the
country has better things to focus on. Others, meanwhile, simply
want to know the truth. I'm in the latter camp. I followed Lance
Armstrong's Tour victories minute by minute, and those and his
charitable work have always been hugely inspiring to me. Based on
all that has come out about cycling in the past decade, I have
come to assume that pretty much everyone in the sport doped and
that you had to dope if you wanted to be competitive. Given this,
I can certainly understand why Lance Armstrong would have doped,
and if he did, I'm not going to get on some huge moral high horse
about his "cheating." ("Cheating" gives you an unfair advantage
over the rest of the field. You don't get that if everyone else
in the field is doing the same thing.) If Lance Armstrong didn't
dope, meanwhile, and everyone else--including his teammates--did,
his accomplishments are that much more staggering. And inasmuch
as we've come this far, I
want to know the truth.